July 16, 2012

Jason DeParle's article in the New York Times, "Two Classes, Divided by 'I Do,'" about a white woman who had three kids with her black boyfriend, who has now abandoned his offspring without a penny was interesting for multiple reasons. One is that out of the voluminous comments that were either NYT Picks or Readers' Favorites, very, very few, if any, mentioned that perhaps society ought to try to do a better job of letting young women know that black guys are, statistically speaking, more likely to:

- heedlessly impregnate them

- not marry them

- not support their offspring

Has anybody ever calculated the odds?

Smart girls seem mostly to figure this kind of thing out for themselves, but not so bright girls ... not so much. Women are pretty good at conforming to social norms, but when the smart people keep the norms a secret, the not-smart women (and, more importantly, their children) suffer.

I would guess that miscegenating parents tend to feel less commitment to their kids.Doesn't mean the abandoned kids can't grow up with a horrid chip on their shoulder and become President. Just not a sensible President.

I was at the Westlake Village Costco last weekend, and there were a ton of muscular, middle class-looking black dudes with their white wives and adorable children in tow. Anecdotal of course, but they seemed to be sticking around.

"Smart girls seem mostly to figure this kind of thing out for themselves"

I like to refer to it as cunning. It takes a thief to know a thief.The other being parallels with that of religion, whereas libs would imagine dirty priests frightening young women into sex by calling them sinners, today they respond to chants of raciss

Speaking of which, the unspeakable was spoken tonight on Bill O'Reilly with his media "expert," former CBS news correspondent, Bernie Goldberg. Bernie zeroed in, along with O'Reilly, on black crime and black dysfunction and their relationship to missing black fathers. (O'Reilly has been highlighting the Chicago violence that the MSM is ignoring.) They didn't dance around the topic either. It was blunt.

I loved what Goldberg said when asked about O'Reilly's previous guest, Mr. Smile With MY Big Teeth, Mr. Perennial Politician,Mr. Term-Limited former Speaker of the State Assembly, the former Mayor of San Fran, The Honorable Motor Mouth and Bull Sh-T artist, Mr. Wille Brown.

Mr. Brown said that Mr. Romney didn't speak to his NAACP audience as he should have. He flat out said that the guv should have told the members of the NAACP just what is was he could do FOR blacks. It was clear he meant Mr. Romney should have told those great representatives of the poor-souled black folk of this nation just what hand-outs he had in mind for them and them alone. After all, they need them. Funny how Mr. Brown and people like him don't even talk any more of why they need them or why others don't need them or why they deserve them and others don't deserve them. Oh, he was pretty damn brazen as Ole Will is known to be. He got that Amos 'n Andy laugh and personality goin' so dat people can't really be dat mad at what he say.

When O'Reilly told Mr. Brown that saying something to that black audience that he didn't say to another audience would have been pandering and dishonest, good ole Willie said "NO! He should have told them, it was only appropriate that he tell them, just what he would do FOR BLACKS."

Pretty transparent he was. Yeah, after all those billions we've thrown at black people for a half a century, ole Willie showed they are brazen about saying, "More."

Okay, so on come Goldberg who said, "You know what Mr. Romney should have told that NAACP audience? That in the '50s less than 25 % of black kids were born out of wedlock and now over 75% of them are. Mr. Romney should have told them, 'I can't do a damn thing to stop that. So for all your professed concern about black unemployment, first you have to address the problem of black kids, particularly black males, growing up without a daddy, then reaching the age when they don't mind their mamas any more, and going out and being violent,killing each other and innocent children. No President can solve that. You need to address that yourselves and until you do, it'll just get worse. You need to be fathers and stop letting Big Daddy Government raise your kids.'

By God, the fantasy of Mr. Romney telling them that just shook me up good. Alas, it's a fantasy, but I now am in love with Bernie Goldberg, a guy whose straight talk I've always appreciated.

Actually, he and Dennis Miller, who's on the show on Wednesdays, are the two reasons I tune in twice a week to O'Reilly.

Seems the subject is out there in the open and I've a feeling the emails to Mr. O'Reilly tonight will hit an all-time high.

society ought to try to do a better job of letting young women know that black guys are, statistically speaking, more likely to:

- heedlessly impregnate them- not marry them- not support their offspring

Steve,

Are there in fact statistics that show this?

If it were also true that black Americans as a group have lower IQ than white Americans, is it more important that European-derived young women know what you cite about parenting OR that they know that their offspring are more likely to slip into the growing U.S. underclass and welfare dependents--facing inherent obstacles in competing against transnational elites for the well-paying jobs knowledge sector jobs and against Mexican for the working class service jobs.

The woman's entire life is an epic fail. I can almost sympathize with the way in which she tries to salvage the first set of bad decisions with more bad decisions. But getting pregnant the second and third time was just over the top.

Inkraven called it: the woman is overweight beyond middle class standards of "matronly". I bet if we were to interact with her it would be obvious to us why she's such a trainwreck.

If you calculate those odds they might come in handy for blogging, but not for deciding who to marry or get knocked up by. That's because by that time you've got so much a posteriori information that the a priori probabilities are pretty much worthless.

In fact, the a priori probabilities wouldn't even be that useful for public policy, because you're not even considering other factors like socio-economic status.

Also, I think you've implicitly committed Derbyshire's Fallacy here, though you didn't state it explicitly as he did. It's seems implicit in your "statistically speaking, more likely." Derbyshire's fallacy, of course, is to consider relative probabilities (blacks vs. whites) in situations where absolute, not relative, probabilities are relevant. Thus, even beside the question of a priori or a posteriori, the question is not - or rather, not only - how much more likely black men are to do these things than white men, but how likely they are to do these things, period.

It seems to me this foolish woman has basically thrown her life away by shacking up with a useless black man when she could have found a nice decent white man to be with. It is of course, a fundamental act of evil to bring children into this world and have no intention to support or care for them. But hey, at least she gets to congratulate herself on her 'liberalism' and show everybody she is not 'racist'.

Just want to say that I am 100% down with your point that when things are left unsaid, here are people who don't pick up the unwritten,unspoken wisdom. I've been noticing this for a long time in ways that have nothing to do with blacks. One example would be "recreational" drugs, another would be the fact that young beautiful women only have a short window of opportunity to find a high status mate. IMO this avoidance of stating the obvious is an additional driver in social stratification. The culture doesn't pull people up any more.

That said, I've seen a lot of black-white couples, and their offspring, in western coastal cities. It isn't always the black guy who splits. A non-trivial fraction of these women are batshit crazy and they're the ones responsible for the breakup.

We seem to be having assortative mating by IQ. As some medieval saint said, "he-fool marry she-fool". Ironically, while it's endlessly called a catastrophe, this process of black guys impregnating fat low-IQ white women, while I guess the low-IQ white men go after Mexican, Amerindian, and Filipino women, is a subtle way of removing the Wal-Mart crowd out of the white population.

I wonder if the SWPLs realize this, and are letting it happen on purpose...

"Smart girls seem mostly to figure this kind of thing out for themselves, but not so bright girls ... not so much"

I wish this point wasn't true but one thing going on with the smart girls is that they're better at *ahem* "planned parenthood".

------------

"I was at the Westlake Village Costco last weekend, and there were a ton of muscular, middle class-looking black dudes with their white wives and adorable children in tow. Anecdotal of course, but they seemed to be sticking around."

I don't doubt your anecdotes, but everyone has anecdotes... but there are hard statistics on this and they show that WW-BM relationships are twice as likely to end in divorce as WW-WM relationships.

Here's my anecdote, I had a huge crush one my best friends' little sister... it was a crush I was rather ashamed of because she was like 4 years younger and I would stay at their house a lot... but this girl was extremely "aggressive"... and looking back there was always something "transgressive" about her demeanor... they're a huge white catholic family(8 kids IIRC) in rural central Illinois...

I checked her out on facebook a couple years ago and she has a kid from an aspiring rapper(not joking)/mixed martial artist from East Saint Louis. They are still together but they're not married.

She is kind of cute if you take the picture far enough away... but if you take one up close she's progressively degrading into Courtney Love 2.0.

The American Left subsidizes bastardy in both white and black in order to increase the number of low IQ voters who will naturally vote Democrat.

For the same reason the American left supports open borders with Mexico -- more low IQ Democrat voters.

I think that's being too cynical. Do you really think there is such widespread awareness that these people are, by and large, congenitally stupid? I think it's more likely that at some level leftists block out awareness of this issue in favor of the social progress paradise they envision taking shape.

These are from the UK for 2001, but I wouldn't imagine things are a great deal different across the pond. Look at the bottom graphic - 22% of "White British" children in lone-parent families (that will have gone up since then), 54-59% of mixed/Black Caribbean kids in lone parent families. Black Africans do better, but not much.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6753695.stm

The source of these BBC stats is two reports to the UK Parliament on "Young Black People and the Criminal Justice System" - probably in the third link, "The Statistical Evidence".

We seem to be having assortative mating by IQ. As some medieval saint said, "he-fool marry she-fool". Ironically, while it's endlessly called a catastrophe, this process of black guys impregnating fat low-IQ white women, while I guess the low-IQ white men go after Mexican, Amerindian, and Filipino women, is a subtle way of removing the Wal-Mart crowd out of the white population.

I wonder if the SWPLs realize this, and are letting it happen on purpose...

Isn't this what some speculate happened in the Jewish communities during the dark/middle ages - lots of their bell curve left siders sort of faded off into gentile-land and resulted in, well, a better class of Jew.

I've long contended that is what is happening w/white folks as the collective subconscious becomes aware that whites are essentially a cloistered minority in a global sea of non-whites.

Hence the constant SWPL hating on lower class whites, just get rid of them, useless baggage.

We seem to be having assortative mating by IQ. As some medieval saint said, "he-fool marry she-fool". Ironically, while it's endlessly called a catastrophe, this process of black guys impregnating fat low-IQ white women, while I guess the low-IQ white men go after Mexican, Amerindian, and Filipino women, is a subtle way of removing the Wal-Mart crowd out of the white population.

I wonder if the SWPLs realize this, and are letting it happen on purpose...

The danger is the resultant mulattoes gradually infiltrating up the population as men continue to marry down, with attendant changes in intellect and character.

Apres-deluge, when the Iron Fist takes over, all men who father out of marriage and miss three child support payments will be sterilized. If they father three they will be sterilized even if they are NBA players.

Women who have had three illegitimate children, three abortions, or three children legit or not on welfare will be sterilized. Or any combination of.

Girls from high schools who have an excessive teen pregnancy rate will all be Norplanted. Girls who drop out of school will be Norplanted.

Women are pretty good at conforming to social norms, but when the smart people keep the norms a secret, the not-smart women (and, more importantly, their children) suffer.

Now just try to imagine what would happen if the smart people disseminated all sorts of propaganda and disinformaition and lies which were intentionally designed to bring about the very worst of all possible outcomes for stupid people.

"The danger is the resultant mulattoes gradually infiltrating up the population as men continue to marry down, with attendant changes in intellect and character."

I think this is what happened in the Middle East. They are so patriarchy oriented that the female's genetics don't count, and so African women were introduced into the Caucasian gene pool with a lowering of IQ. Some Middle Easterners are essentially the same as southern Europeans but some aren't.

Black men evidently must exude a pheremone that short-circuits women's brains. After all, Stanley Ann Dunham, who, iirc, graduated high school at 16, was obviously no dummy, but made an incredibly bad decision with respect to a certain black African exchange student...

"Is it reasonable to say that a white woman doubles her chances of a bad outcome (e.g., out of wedlock pregnancy) if she gets involved with a black man instead of a white man?"

It is not reasonable to say that to a teenage girl. I have two daughters, and I certainly do not plan to sit down with them and go over the actuarial tables showing who is the best bet to get knocked up by in college. I plan to tell them not to get knocked up in college by anyone of any race, color, or creed.

Anon 8:20, I see a few of those around town north of Boston, too. But the brothers are definitely what Whiskey would call beta, and the women are huskier Katie Roiphies. The kids will be the most attractive members of the family.

Steve Sailer "Is it reasonable to say that a white woman doubles her chances of a bad outcome (e.g., out of wedlock pregnancy) if she gets involved with a black man instead of a white man?"

No. It's not being attracted to black men that's the problem, the problem is being attracted to cads.

Since black men abandon their mates and children more often than white men, relationships between white women and black men will tend to disproportionately represent white women who are attracted to poor husband material. If these women didn't marry a black man, they would probably marry a white man who would abandon them in a similar manner.

But if a women values men with good character, then she's likely to pick out a good mate regardless of whether he's black or white.

Now inter-racial marriage does create a lot of difficulties and challenges absent in mono-racial marriage, so yes, the likelihood of a woman experiencing a bad outcome does increase independent of these factors. But to argue that marrying a black man in itself doubles the chances is to overlook the fact that the root cause is not the inter-racial marriage, but the character types involved on both sides.

Now you might make the argument that if these women don't marry a black man, they might be forced into marrying a white man with more husband-potential, thus halving the chances of a bad outcome. But I doubt there's any shortage of unmarried white men with similarly low potential, so I think the end result would be close to the same.

Black men evidently must exude a pheremone that short-circuits women's brains. After all, Stanley Ann Dunham, who, iirc, graduated high school at 16, was obviously no dummy, but made an incredibly bad decision with respect to a certain black African exchange student...

"Aaron in Israel said...If you calculate those odds they might come in handy for blogging, but not for deciding who to marry or get knocked up by. That's because by that time you've got so much a posteriori information that the a priori probabilities are pretty much worthless.

In fact, the a priori probabilities wouldn't even be that useful for public policy, because you're not even considering other factors like socio-economic status.

Also, I think you've implicitly committed Derbyshire's Fallacy here, though you didn't state it explicitly as he did. It's seems implicit in your "statistically speaking, more likely." Derbyshire's fallacy, of course, is to consider relative probabilities (blacks vs. whites) in situations where absolute, not relative, probabilities are relevant. Thus, even beside the question of a priori or a posteriori, the question is not - or rather, not only - how much more likely black men are to do these things than white men, but how likely they are to do these things, period."

Talking about "a priori" and "a posteriori" is twaddle; a hormone-addled girl will see all sorts of "a posteriori" clues to the fact that her honey will, in fact, ditch her. She will ignore them - or, more accurately, she will think that these indicators of unreliability are "hot".

This is why culturally-ingrained prejudices are useful: they use emotions to prevent people from making mistakes that their reason is too feeble to guard against. Our prejudices, unfortunately, direct women to act even more foolishly than they otherwise would.

As for your second objection - I can only suppose that every story I've read indicating that there are, in fact, black people in Israel is in error, or that it is remarkably easy to insulate yourself from them. You really think that the absolute probability of a black man knocking up his girl, then promptly ditching her is...low? Yes, we don't have numbers on it for obvious reasons, but anyone who knows lower-class Americans can see that it's somewhere between the expected outcome, and a near-certainty.

Maybe this doesn't hold generally; maybe our blacks are a unique global phenomenon in their propensity to pump and dump, pump and dump, repeat until too old or too dead. But it certainly holds here - come over spend a few years in a sketchy urban neighborhood if you don't believe me.

Wait, that doesn't sound too appetizing, does it? Then don't go logic-chopping with people who have actually done this; you simply have no clue what you are talking about.

I knocked up a much older, more experienced woman at 22. I took financial responsibility (as much as possible) but not day-to-day fathering responsibility. My son is popular successful and smart so his mother (despite all of her flaws) did an excellent job, although he wants very little to do with me now.

"And, hey, that Bernie Goldberg sounds like someone who knows how to say no to blacks. That's a skill every republican could stand to learn, you reckon."

Hey, it's a skill every American could stand to learn. And that includes blacks.

When you're eating a half gallon of ice cream every night and you're 16 and active, so what? When you keep it up and don't account for the effects it will have on you for the rest of your life, all you've done is laid the way for your ill health.

All black leaders and a huge % of blacks have done over the last few decades is laid the way to their new kind of captivity--captivity by government. All the while, the people paying their freight are growing angry, and it's justified.

David M: "Now inter-racial marriage does create a lot of difficulties and challenges absent in mono-racial marriage, so yes, the likelihood of a woman experiencing a bad outcome does increase independent of these factors. But to argue that marrying a black man in itself doubles the chances is to overlook the fact that the root cause is not the inter-racial marriage, but the character types involved on both sides."

But that's not at all what Steve asked--and you should know--you quoted his question in your reply. In case you missed it, what he actually wrote was, "Is it reasonable to say that a white woman doubles her chances of a bad outcome (e.g., out of wedlock pregnancy) if she gets involved with a black man instead of a white man?"

I think you've implicitly committed Derbyshire's Fallacy here... Derbyshire's fallacy, of course, is to consider relative probabilities (blacks vs. whites) in situations where absolute, not relative, probabilities are relevant... the question is not - or rather, not only - how much more likely black men are to do these things than white men, but how likely they are to do these things, period."

--- end quote ---

Let's stipulate that Derbyshire stated only relative probabilities (I'm not going to check). Can you state why this is an error in reasoning due to misconception or presumption that rises to the level of fallacy?

Evo-psych explanations is that almost all women, almost all the time, want to be in a polygamous relationship with the top players, the top 10% of men, socially and dominance-wise, and money matters little. That this is hard-wired as being a primate, almost all of whom live like this.

And that the nuclear family is artificial, constructed mainly by Europeans and NE Asians, to survive in low-resource environments. The Black nuclear family was "forced" by White pressure in segregation to conform, and incredibly low resources pre-Welfare State. Without it Black people could literally starve. See Louis Armstrong's auto-biography, painfully typed out without any ghostwriter. Or Jelly Roll Morton's recollections on the re-released Library of Congress Records.

As Roissy noted, "five minutes of Alpha beats five years of beta."

These women were optimizing SEX and dominance, and "Alpha kids" at the expense of a middle class life.

And to their minds, they are not giving up much.

Welfare statism means that they won't starve. Or be homeless. Their kids get CONSIDERABLE AA benefits, probably equivalent or GREATER than a middle class beta male could or would provide. Meanwhile they get much better sex and dominance from an Alpha male who does not stick around and morph into a hated beta provider.

Its an optimal for them. You can see this at all levels, look at how women did NOT throw themselves at Mark Zuckerberg before marriage, his Asian wife like Melinda Gates with her husband seems to barely tolerate him. That's the pre-money primate moving the primal urges. Chimps and early humans did not have money, just group social dominance. Its hard-wired.

EVEN Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, has the Lizzie character immediately taken with the cad and disliking the stuffy rich guy Darcy. It takes a whole boatload of social norms and sexual repression for that to reverse. High resource abundant societies allow women to express their inner primate and simply mate with the most socially dominant guy around. Since they don't NEED them to stick around in boring beta providership.

Beta male nuclear families (not enough sexy Alphas to create them) restrict female sexuality and to a degree, male Alpha (no need to restrict beta males -- women don't want them anyway) in a massive "settling" compromise that produces wealth and security at the expense of female satisfaction in male sexiness. Which is a function of personal physical dominance and not much else.

Einstein, Von Braun, Oppenheimer, Teller, those guys produce a massive advantage for a society but it seems it can't reproduce itself since women find them repellent compared to your average aspiring Black rapper/thug, or White tattooed bicycle messenger.

A lot of smart people are working day and night to make Jessica Schairer the norm, at least for the Jessica Schairers of this world. It is they who are not conforming to the official norms. “It is the privileged Americans who are marrying, and marrying helps them stay privileged,” said Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist at Johns Hopkins University. It's the privileged who push multiculturalism on the lower classes and that helps them stay privileged - fixed it for you, Professor.

1) It could've been shortened to just two words: white trash. I can't imagine wasting, err using, so many words to relate that a white woman impregnated by a member of the least reliable and economically successful -- by far -- group of men in America would end up raising the kid alone and having money problems. Gee, what a surprise. Add to that the fact that most white women who go with black men are low class to begin with. Wonder how much time was wasted, err spent, on this 'tell me something I don't know' article.

2) When I looked at it, almost 1200 people had bothered to comment. Probably nearly every one absolutely insipid (not in the mood to be charitable today).

OK, three things:

3) Again, as in any random assembly of fotos I see these days, it seemed the majority of the adults -- maybe even the kids -- were either overweight or downright fat. That is really disgusting. But so 'America' these days. Sad.

"Since black men abandon their mates and children more often than white men, relationships between white women and black men will tend to disproportionately represent white women who are attracted to poor husband material."

This presupposes that outside of minor IQ-related differences that blacks and whites have no essential racial characteristics at all.

From my perspective it seems that all of those things that correlate with IQ don't magically make higher IQ blacks into whites, or lower IQ whites into blacks. That black cads are orders of magnitude worse mate choices than white cads regardless of IQ.

It presupposes that all things being equal, a black man or a white man are of interchangeable quality as mates (or any other facet of life for that matter), which is a hard pill to swallow for anyone who isn't brain dead (or black).

"But if a women values men with good character, then she's likely to...

...retain some semblance of familial loyalty and not be compelled to have children that will look nothing like her, or her relatives; children that are almost certain to reject and be actively hostile to her culture.

No such creature exists that is of 'good character' yet simultaneously traitorous against their own family and kind for the sake of pleasure or hormone-induced 'romance', or whatever the possibly reason could be.

the question is not - or rather, not only - how much more likely black men are to do these things than white men, but how likely they are to do these things, period.

Why is that the question?

Suppose that blacks commit murder at the rate of 20 per hundred thousand. (I don't know what their actual murder rate it, but it is unimportant in this context) By itself that tells you ... nothing much. It is only when compared to the crime statistics for other races that blacks look bad. Their crime numbers, viewed in isolation, are just meaningless.

Black men evidently must exude a pheremone that short-circuits women's brains. After all, Stanley Ann Dunham, who, iirc, graduated high school at 16, was obviously no dummy, but made an incredibly bad decision with respect to a certain black African exchange student...

Born into an earlier generation, she'd have shocked her parents by wearing pants. No magical "black pheromone" is necessary to explain her actions.

Steve asks if something could be done about alerting the slower-witted gals to this,the Bad Black Dad Syndrome and I say,hell yeah! Get a well heeled type,like that Lions of Narnia dude,to make a TV ad,one that of necessity will gain massive pub. It would go something like this: A group of couples greet each other on a beautiful morning on Pleasant Avenue in Anytown,USA. They are going on a wonderful outing together with their beloved kids.Look! Theres the White male,Asian female couple,so well dressed and happy as they exit their Lexus with their smiling kids. And the white-white couple,parking their shiny car,also happy and laughing with their tow-headed dears. And here comes the white-latina couple,she sooo sexy.They all gather round laughing and talking as their kids play. Its going to be a wonderful day! But wait where is their friend Sue? A couple of the "boys" cast wary glances at their wives. "Dont worry she said she'd be here,"scolds one of the women. "Just as well if she flakes," says one,"the drama gets old." "Thats not fair," retorts a wife as hint of a smile creases her well-scrubbed face,"but then again...". Finally a broken down Chevy lumbers up and out of it emerges,with much difficulty,an enormous fat woman in a giant T- shirt,with some faded stains, and shorts. Her jowls shake as her greeting to the couples is interrupted by one of her mullatto kids screaming at the other as they dash out of the rusty car. "Jamal!! #@#%&*$ you Jamal!! I told you to behave!" The others smile politely... NOTE: Tay-Sachs is a disease the gene for which is carried by one in 30 Ashkenazi jews. Did you know its also carried by one in 50 Irish people???Its also prevalent in the Cajun pop?? Hmm.

First, if your children aren't girls, the half asian/half white son is screwed the majority of the time.

There are serious mental illness problems in half asian/half whites...I know 3 people personally, 2 of which committed suicide.

Third, do we really need to break up our race and create sub-races even if the sub-race is 'civilized' NO! That's dumb! Creating sub-races weakens the parent race Fools!

So yeah...there's no difference between the White Male/Asian Female couple and the White Female/Black Male couple...they are both weakening the parent race..but there is maybe one difference....the wf/bm couple has more kids which on an evolutionary basis is > then the 1 or 2 child households of the wm/af..even if they aren't as high IQ.

"Despite all my reservations about you, I sense you are a better than average dad."

If that's the case, the bar is pretty darn low. The truth is; I donated money, apparently good genes, an occasional letter, phone call, and birthday gift, and a week or so during the summer and somehow my son figured it out.

Is it more important for European females to know about fathering trends or about IQ trends?

She doesn't need statistics or "trends" to judge a potential father's intelligence. She can observe his intellect in action.

But she can't see how he reacts to the birth of a baby until after the child is born, when it's too late. Thus, obviously, the general tendency of Black fathers to abandon their children without providing resources for them is a much more valuable datum.

Here is a recent relevant paper. Even if you don't believe their theory, they collect some troubling facts.

The Plight of Mixed Race AdolescentsRoland G. Fryer, JrLisa KahnSteven D. LevittJörg L. SpenkuchAbstractOver the past 40 years the fraction of mixed race black-white births has increased nearly nine-fold. There is little empirical evidence on how these children fare relative to their single-race counterparts. This paper describes basic facts about the plight of mixed race individuals during their adolescence and early adulthood. As one might expect, on a host of background and achievement characteristics, mixed race adolescents fall in between whites and blacks. When it comes to engaging in risky/anti-social adolescent behavior, however, mixed race adolescents are stark outliers compared to both blacks and whites. We argue that these behavioral patterns are most consistent with the "marginal man" hypothesis, which we formalize as a two-sector Roy model. Mixed race adolescents -- not having a natural peer group -- need to engage in more risky behaviors to be accepted. All other models we considered can explain neither why mixed race adolescents are outliers on risky behaviors nor why these behaviors are not strongly influenced by the racial composition at their school.

I think you've implicitly committed Derbyshire's Fallacy here... Derbyshire's fallacy, of course, is to consider relative probabilities (blacks vs. whites) in situations where absolute, not relative, probabilities are relevant... the question is not - or rather, not only - how much more likely black men are to do these things than white men, but how likely they are to do these things, period."

--- end quote ---

Let's stipulate that Derbyshire stated only relative probabilities (I'm not going to check). Can you state why this is an error in reasoning due to misconception or presumption that rises to the level of fallacy?

Relative frequencies would be important in the case where it was a given that the girl would have to be impregenated and drop out of college, and the only question was whether she should choose a white or black impregnator. But given that she has a third option of not being impregnated by anybody, which is far superior to either of the other two options, the comparison of those two options is irrelevant.

In other words, if a girl is trying to decide whether to go all the way with her black date, the question is not whether he is more or less reliable than the average white date, the question is whether he is more or less reliable than a potential co-parent would need to be to make the risk of pregnancy bearable. Now of course if there are a lot of super-reliable white dates around, part of the cost of pregnancy is foreclosing the option of those dates in the future. So if the average reliability of both black and white dates were high enough in the absolute sense, then it might make sense to factor relative risks in. But I really don't think either race's average reliability clears the bar; the lady in question got pregnant and dropped out first year of college. The average white kid isn't going to be able to keep that from changing her life for the worse either.

"I would guess that miscegenating parents tend to feel less commitment to their kids."

I think in this case, it's more of an IQ/time-preference thing. The WASP/Jewish/Asian/Indian upper-middle-class crossbreeders seem to invest the usual huge amount of time into their spawn.

In BM-WF couplings, it has nothing to do with IQ or time preference. It has much to do with the fact that the White mother usually learns the hard way that she will get no resources from the father and that she has also ruined her chances of getting any resources from any White man. It also has a lot to do with the fact that the child is no more related to the mother than is a random White stranger.

"If that's the case, the bar [for being a good dad] is pretty darn low. The truth is; I donated money, apparently good genes, an occasional letter, phone call, and birthday gift, and a week or so during the summer and somehow my son figured it out."

all three of the black immigrant employees at my companies have 1, 2 and 3 baby mamas respectively, [I recently discovered by being the only reader on the job when one got a credit card garnishment but thought " some bitch" was suing him,]that none pay child support all have made arrangements to have welfare take care of their families while they hunt the next victims, many of us white guys have not lived up to the feminist ideal and have sadly had our children taken from us by our exes and pay about $1200 month for the injury [good 100k union jobs] these blacks i later found out have another advantage they put half a dozen or more dependents on their tax returns; im assured its such common practice in the hood that any tax preparer will hook me up with the requisite social security numbers if i lack enough indolent relatives or friends. no doubt in a dozen years i will be also supporting their grand kids and then great grand-kids all the way through penitentiary

Their parents could still fill this role, even though larger society is steering them down the wrong path. The fact is lower class white parents are steadily becoming more black themselves and neglecting basic aspects of parenting like this.

""Yes, that's one among a long list of negatives. Another approach is to ask people to describe the benefits of race-mixing with blacks; these benefits are_______?"

Isn't it totally obvious?

Giving dweebs like you hypertension so that you don't live to collect medicare.

You have to admit it's a huge public benefit."

- If that's the goal it's failing miserably. Blacks are the ones dying young, not whites.

I think the solution to being annoyed is to recognize, how much longer can this nonsense go on? Not much more, its obvious that this liberal fantasy is unsustainable long term and going over the cliff. Good luck to the homies when the pendulum swings the other way.

"...none pay child support all have made arrangements to have welfare take care of their families while they hunt the next victims..."

The black guys I knew in my old neighborhood didn't pay child support. They didn't make arrangements to have welfare take care of their families--the baby mamas did that.

I was stunned to learn it was a matter of pride to them that they didn't contribute any money or material resources to their families and that they were free to stop by any of the households for sex and a meal whenever they chose. They usually got their women to give them money, too. They would talk about this quite openly and with considerable pride. To them, being a man meant siring children and getting others to support them, their offspring and their baby mamas.

Anonymous asked me, why are absolute and not relative probabilities "the" question? Actually, I qualified that: I said relative probabilities may be relevant, too. If your job is to target public service announcements to specific "communities," then yeah, the ratio of the probabilities is what to look at. Presumably you've already decided the risks themselves are high enough to justify that action. But if you want to know whether your daughter should go out with some black guy, you want to know (in terms of this blog post) the risk it'll end up badly, even more than you want to know how much more likely that would be than if she went out with some white guy. The answer to the first question might make the second question academic.

For a hypothetical example, suppose she's going out with some upper-middle-class black guy, and that upper-middle-class black guys are twice as likely to beat their wives as upper-middle-class white guys. So what? If those chances were, say, 1% and 2%, then who cares about the difference? Similarly if both probabilities were really high, near 100%, but the one for blacks were higher. The Derbyshire Fallacy* is to ignore the actual risks and to look only at the 2:1 ratio.

In your example, if you were thinking of taking a shortcut through a black neighborhood, you wouldn't primarily care how much safer the nearby white neighborhood is. You'd care how dangerous that black neighborhood is, in absolute terms: the probability that you'll get attacked. If that probability were low, then maybe you'd walk through there; if it were high, then you'd ask yourself how dangerous the nearby white neighborhood is, again in absolute terms.

*The Derbyshire Fallacy was identified by William Saletan and Noah Millman.

I understand your logic, but do keep in mind that the both the relative and absolute chances of a negative outcome (e.g., abandonment of her and her children without financial support) from a white working class woman falling in love with a man are sizable under any conditions and even more sizable with a black man. It's not a 1% chance of something going wrong with a white guy v. a 2% chance with a black guy, it might be more like 30% with a white man and 60% with a black man. I won't swear to those numbers, but that's roughly what we are talking about.

@ Kylie: Okay, strike marriage and replace with relationship, it is all still the same logic. And of course an out of wedlock birth is only one example of the bad outcomes he was referring to.

@ K(yle): I think you're right that black cads are on average worse than white cads, because lower class black culture encourages this behavior even more than lower class white culture does. So you're also right that this further increases the odds of a bad outcome. I am not convinced though that there is anything genetically "black" about this poor behavior - just look at how well lower class white and black cultures mirror each other in Britain. It may be that genetics matters mostly to the extent that it determines the proportion of persons who end up in the lower class.

Even granting that odds are worse with a black cad than with a white cad, I still think Steve is overstating the negative influence. It may be true that 30% of white-white relationships end up with a bad outcome, and 60% of white-black relationships end up with a bad outcome. But let's say you took that population of women involved with black men, and somehow restricted them to relationships with white men. You would probably see that their rate of bad outcomes still ends up much higher than the 30% average, because they will still manage to pick out poor mates, and they will still bring all their own personal failings to the relationship.

For a hypothetical example, suppose she's going out with some upper-middle-class black guy, and that upper-middle-class black guys are twice as likely to beat their wives as upper-middle-class white guys. So what? If those chances were, say, 1% and 2%, then who cares about the difference? Similarly if both probabilities were really high, near 100%, but the one for blacks were higher. The Derbyshire Fallacy* is to ignore the actual risks and to look only at the 2:1 ratio.

Another hypothetical example, suppose your Jewish daughter going out with a secular Palestinian and that secular Palestinian is twice as unlikely to want to raise Jewish children as a secular Jew. So what? If the chances of her children being raised as Jews is low in both cases who cares about the difference? Caring about intermarriage is the Foxman fallacy.

"It's not a 1% chance of something going wrong with a white guy v. a 2% chance with a black guy, it might be more like 30% with a white man and 60% with a black man. I won't swear to those numbers, but that's roughly what we are talking about."

- I'd say its more like 10% with a white guy and 60% with a black guy....

"The Derbyshire Fallacy* is to ignore the actual risks and to look only at the 2:1 ratio."

and the Derbyshire failing is to not have an academia department that can put out statistics like the "1 in 4 college women have been raped or attempted rape", indoctrinate its pupils, and quash the fallacy-makers under a deluge of propaganda.

Derbyshire's fallacy, of course, is to consider relative probabilities (blacks vs. whites) in situations where absolute, not relative, probabilities are relevant...

--- end quote ---

Without checking, I assumed that Derbyshire had stated only relative probabilities in his article The Talk: Nonblack Version -- he didn't, it turns out -- and asked for an explanation of this "fallacy" (7/17/12 10:35 AM).

Aaron in Israel has now offered an explanation (7/17/12 9:44 PM), and it is weak tea. Aaron relies on the premise that Derbyshire was comparing trivially small probabilities with each other, e.g. "2% is twice as large as 1%!"

This is a silly criticsm. The most clear-cut reason is that Derbyshire made qualitative arguments, proffering neither relative nor absolute probabilities (check the link). Second, Derbyshire's critics assume that the various probabilities at issue lack real-world impacts. That this need not be so was demonstrated over a dozen years ago by La Griffe du Lion, here.

this is why i think european preservationists should becomes jews. jewish parents can discriminate against their daughters being with blacks by saying "marry a jew". but blacks have embraced christianity so white christians can't have that cover.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.